Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.

Times and dates in your local timezone.

Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.

We have those sorts of problems in Henley, where various different kinds of amenities and infrastructure are under the control of the town council, the district council, the county council, the highways agency, and the environment agency.

However, let's move off that tangent and take a look at the Boris Johnson niqab affair.

It certainly is flushing the alt-rightists of the Conservative party into the full light of day.

Ian Duncan Smith saying that the preservation of free speech demands that no-one is allowed to criticise BoJo.

Rees-Mogg saying that if BoJo wants to become leader of the party, no-one is allowed to try and frustrate his ambition.

Both of them spouting these contradictions with a completely straight face.

"Trump’s values are not our values, whatever party we support. His racism, misogyny, and attacks on democratic values, seek to legitimise an authoritarian politics that is profoundly dangerous and threatening to our societies."

Isn’t that standard right wing cognitive dissonance? It’s about standard for the right to claim what they say, no matter how awful, is free speech and to try and stop any critical comments of them. I don’t think it’s alt right, it’s just normal standard conservative behaviour.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/11 06:54:20

insaniak wrote:Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...

W're not seeing it from a lot of the rest of the party, though. We've actually seen strong criticism of Bozza from a number of high level party figures.

"Trump’s values are not our values, whatever party we support. His racism, misogyny, and attacks on democratic values, seek to legitimise an authoritarian politics that is profoundly dangerous and threatening to our societies."

Kilkrazy wrote:We have those sorts of problems in Henley, where various different kinds of amenities and infrastructure are under the control of the town council, the district council, the county council, the highways agency, and the environment agency.

However, let's move off that tangent and take a look at the Boris Johnson niqab affair.

It certainly is flushing the alt-rightists of the Conservative party into the full light of day.

Ian Duncan Smith saying that the preservation of free speech demands that no-one is allowed to criticise BoJo.

Rees-Mogg saying that if BoJo wants to become leader of the party, no-one is allowed to try and frustrate his ambition.

Both of them spouting these contradictions with a completely straight face.

That's because strategically they think it is a vote winner for them being both the next leader and winning the next election. Which shows something depressing about a significant minority in this country. The irony being that for the Labour party it would be a vote loser. It does say something about the respective parties and their support.

The criticism can be split into three basic groups:-

Those completely opposed to the comments (some in the Tory party)
Those that waited to see how the wind blew and might use it for politicial maneouvering (e.g. May's condemnation was muted, delayed and weak, however she has seen it as a potential option to silence Bozo although that seems to be backfiring, which is not surprising because May never makes sound judgements).
Those that think it is 'free speech'

One of the other things it exposes is the hypocrisy of both the nation, papers and the Tory party. If Corbyn or similar had made a 'joke' about the Kippah then you can bet your bottom dollar that the right wing papers/Tories (including people like Rees-Mogg/Bozo) etc would have been all over the anti-Semitism angle.

"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V

Strategically it is a vote winner for becoming the next leader. There is a pretty strong strain of Islamophobia in the Conservative Party membership, partly reflecting their greater average age.

This does not necessarily carry over to the country as a whole, however if Bozza can get a contest against May in the near future, we could potentially be saddled with him as PM until 2022.

It doesn't bear thinking about.

"Trump’s values are not our values, whatever party we support. His racism, misogyny, and attacks on democratic values, seek to legitimise an authoritarian politics that is profoundly dangerous and threatening to our societies."

Kilkrazy wrote:We have those sorts of problems in Henley, where various different kinds of amenities and infrastructure are under the control of the town council, the district council, the county council, the highways agency, and the environment agency.

However, let's move off that tangent and take a look at the Boris Johnson niqab affair.

It certainly is flushing the alt-rightists of the Conservative party into the full light of day.

Ian Duncan Smith saying that the preservation of free speech demands that no-one is allowed to criticise BoJo.

Rees-Mogg saying that if BoJo wants to become leader of the party, no-one is allowed to try and frustrate his ambition.

Both of them spouting these contradictions with a completely straight face.

Bojo should be criticised night and day, and I've got plenty to say about him, none of it good.

Religious garments are also fair game in my book. I don't give any religion a free pass on that.

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Does anyone have a link to an archived copy of the Boris Johnson article so I can judge his remarks first hand without relying on hear say or having to go through the pay wall?

That's difficult because, well you have to pay to get access it.

The Scum paper has perhaps a more comprehensive section on what he said:-

Mr Johnson wrote: "If you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree.

"I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes."
And he added that "a female student turned up at school or at a university lecture looking like a bank robber" he would ask her to remove it to speak to her.
Mr Johnson, who quit as Foreign Secretary last month over Brexit, said it was "sensible" to be able to read each others facial expressions and humans "must be able to see each other's faces".
He said that individual businesses or branches of Government should be free to enforce a dress code that enables their workers to best interact with customers - which could involve removing the veils.

In what he says he is wrong. People are entitled to wear what they want. It would actually be better for society if all of us wore clothes that showed no features, made us all equal height, made our voices all the same and so forth. It is one of human's worst natures is that too many judge simply on sex, colour of skin and so forth. Wearing certain types of clothes shouldn't condemn you to people thinking you look like a letterbox or a robber. It's the same type of thinking that is effectively racism or religious intolerance in that someone is being judged on what they wear rather then their actions.

Form my perspective it's absolutely ridiculous that a person should choose to go around looking like an upturned mop after wiping a dirty floor...but then at least one person does and I suppose that is his right.

Meanwhile you're slinging around hyperbolic labels like "Alt-Right" with a straight face...That term really has become a bogeyman for the Left, hasn't it?

Because it should be a bogeyman. Let's not forget that the Alt-Right was not coined by centre/left of society. It was dreamt up by those that wanted an umbrella for some very nasty, bigoted and racist views and to hide them under the guise of something more acceptable. This allows them to capture those that may be right leaning but would find some of the concepts appalling whilst inveigling those same principles slowly into those people.

"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V

There's a famous Tony Benn quote that goes every generation to fight the same battles of the previous generation.

So, despite centuries of religious bloodshed in Europe, a Spanish Inquisition, a powerful and dominant Catholic church and laws against blasphemy, all of which were radically curbed by the Enlightenment, here we are again with a man in trouble for criticising a religious garment.

Must we have to go through this bull again? It's depressing and it's even more depressing that I have to defend Bojo

Should Muslim women be able to wear these garments? Absolutely. I would be against a ban.

Should people be able to criticise these garments. Absolutely God damn right.

I will always defend people's right to worship how they please and dress how they please, but in a secular Britain no religion gets a free pass or special privileges for their beliefs. Never.

If you took that to its logical conclusion, everybody would demand all sorts of special treatment. You can't run a society like that.

@whirlwind. The other week, there was a Tory MP calling for people like yourself, EU supporters, to be done for treason because of your support for the EU.

Absolutely fething ridiculous. God knows I've had plenty to say about the EU recently, none of it good, but I would always defend people's right to support the EU through peaceful democratic means.

Do you see how precious free speech is and how censorship and calls for groups to be silenced can group from issue to issue at the drop of a hat?

By God, I wish we had the 1st amendment in Britain.

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd

Whirlwind wrote:In what he says he is wrong. People are entitled to wear what they want.

Agreed. I don't like the Burka because I think its misogynist with regards to the religious and cultural pressures for Muslim women to cover up their flesh to prevent Men ogling them. Thats essentially shifting the onus for Men to not misbehave to Women covering up because Men just can't help it. Its victim blaming.

However, I don't want the Government to be in the business of banning and controlling what people can wear as I generally don't like intrusions into private life.
(except of course in very specific circumstances for reasons of security etc where one must show their face).

It would actually be better for society if all of us wore clothes that showed no features, made us all equal height, made our voices all the same and so forth. It is one of human's worst natures is that too many judge simply on sex, colour of skin and so forth. Wearing certain types of clothes shouldn't condemn you to people thinking you look like a letterbox or a robber.

You want to cover up and conceal Diversity? You're starting to sound like the Alt Right in reverse.

t's the same type of thinking that is effectively racism or religious intolerance in that someone is being judged on what they wear rather then their actions.

I don't judge Muslim Women for wearing Burkas. I blame the religious and cultural pressures that coerce Muslim women into wearing them (i.e. Men).

Because it should be a bogeyman. Let's not forget that the Alt-Right was not coined by centre/left of society. It was dreamt up by those that wanted an umbrella for some very nasty, bigoted and racist views and to hide them under the guise of something more acceptable. This allows them to capture those that may be right leaning but would find some of the concepts appalling whilst inveigling those same principles slowly into those people.

It's overused and in practice tends be used by the Far Left to refer to anyone Right of Karl Marx.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Does anyone have a link to an archived copy of the Boris Johnson article so I can judge his remarks first hand without relying on hear say or having to go through the pay wall?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Ian Duncan Smith saying that the preservation of free speech demands that no-one is allowed to criticise BoJo.

Then he's an idiot who doesn't understand Free Speech. BoJo has the right to make these remarks, but people also have the right to criticise his remarks.

Both of them spouting these contradictions with a completely straight face.

Meanwhile you're slinging around hyperbolic labels like "Alt-Right" with a straight face...That term really has become a bogeyman for the Left, hasn't it?

There was no incitement to violence in Bojo's words or any racism I could see. It was a man (a complete buffoon I grant you) criticising an item of clothing.

I honestly don't see what the fuss is. If people are offended that's their problem.

You can't operate a free society on the basis that some things can't be said in case people take offence. Voltaire would be spinning in his grave.

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd

Whirlwind wrote:In what he says he is wrong. People are entitled to wear what they want.

Agreed. I don't like the Burka because I think its misogynist with regards to the religious and cultural pressures for Muslim women to cover up their flesh to prevent Men ogling them. Thats essentially shifting the onus for Men to not misbehave to Women covering up because Men just can't help it. Its victim blaming.

It is way more complicated than this. You are making out that the only reason women wear burka's is because they are pressurised by men from sizing them up. You could quite easily apply the same argument as to why any of us wear clothes in the first place. We could however just walk about butt naked everywhere because simply that is what clothes do - hide part of our bodies or to make a statement (and occasionally keep us warm).

Lots of clothes have historic routes and it becomes what we are 'comfortable' wearing. From what I've gathered Burkas originated from tribal times when tribes tend to raid other tribes for brides. During such raids the raiders tended to grab the more attractive women, hence burkas became established because it hid people from what they looked like. It doesn't however mean that same situation applies.

The assumption that all women that wear burka's are in some way all forced to wear them lacks any concept that they might want to or that is what they are most comfortable with. In effect this views a certain group of people as undertaking certain actions without considering the individual, which effectively has racist undertones (and is the issue that people oppose Bozos comments on) because it is limited to a certain group of people. It effectively comes down to "white man uncomfortable with a dress style therefore makes assumptions and assertions on the whole group without actually thinking of the individual circumstances".

There are almost certainly dominating men in society but that doesn't extend just to one group or another. It is prevalent throughout society, a type of clothing shouldn't be used as singling out one group or another

You want to cover up and conceal Diversity? You're starting to sound like the Alt Right in reverse.

But would it. The community would still be diverse, with opinions taken from around the world. It doesn't stop the people being diverse at all. What it does stop is a judgement being made because of your race, sex, religion and so forth and hence the diverse views are given equal weighting. That's why many job applications now remove all personal information before being assessed. You view the content, not the person. That doesn't restrict diversity - in fact it should increase it because no, human evolved, pre-judgement takes place.

I don't judge Muslim Women for wearing Burkas. I blame the religious and cultural pressures that coerce Muslim women into wearing them (i.e. Men).

I ask again how can you make this statement? I presume you blame UK religious and cultural pressures for us to wear suits and ties, do you blame religious and cultural pressures for people having to wear these - A tie is after all just a statement saying I have a big cock! Would you apply that same rationale to skirts, high heel shoes, bikinis, budgie smugglers etc etc. You make this statement as fact yet where is the evidence that every woman that wears a burka does it for this reason alone!

It's overused and in practice tends be used by the Far Left to refer to anyone Right of Karl Marx.

I think this is more of an excuse not to want to see it and a way of waving it away and ignoring it because it might make looking under the hood more 'difficult'. It's quite easy to wave away uncomfortable truths when you approach things like this.

There was no incitement to violence in Bojo's words or any racism I could see. It was a man (a complete buffoon I grant you) criticising an item of clothing.

I honestly don't see what the fuss is. If people are offended that's their problem.

You can't operate a free society on the basis that some things can't be said in case people take offence. Voltaire would be spinning in his grave.

So you woudl be quite happy for me to compare you to a paedophile because of the clothes you wear? There's a huge difference between free speech and making assertions about a group of people because of the clothes they wear. Freedom of speech also comes with responsibility to use that with discretion and sense.

It would have been OK to say "I find speaking to someone that has their face covered difficult because I use facial expressions to understand the impact of my statements"
It's not OK to say because someone wears a burka they look like a bank robber or letter box - this makes an assertion about a group of people and is the roots of racism and bigotry.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/11 13:44:47

"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V

I ask again how can you make this statement? I presume you blame UK religious and cultural pressures for us to wear suits and ties, do you blame religious and cultural pressures for people having to wear these - A tie is after all just a statement saying I have a big cock! Would you apply that same rationale to skirts, high heel shoes, bikinis, budgie smugglers etc etc. You make this statement as fact

Read the links.

Do you deny that flogging a woman for refusing to wear a Burqa is misogyny?

yet where is the evidence that every woman that wears a burka does it for this reason alone!

Where is the evidence that it is not? Do you seriously think that Women who "choose" to wear Burqa's are doing it purely out of choice, and not because they have been raised and indoctrinated to believe its a religious mandate and they'd be bad Muslims if they don't? Do you seriously believe that Muslim women do not feel pressure from their communities and families to dress a certain way?

It's overused and in practice tends be used by the Far Left to refer to anyone Right of Karl Marx.

I think this is more of an excuse not to want to see it and a way of waving it away and ignoring it because it might make looking under the hood more 'difficult'. It's quite easy to wave away uncomfortable truths when you approach things like this.

I'm not waiving away anything. I don't doubt for a minute that genuine Far Right "Alt-Righters" exist. But they'e a tiny minority of the people who are labelled "Alt Right". The vast majority of people labelled "Alt Right" are simply ordinary Conservatives. Its become an absurd witch hunt blown out of all proportion.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/11 13:55:04

I find it odd that the Left in the West gets so worked up over a religious garment that is used to oppress Women elsewhere in the world...

I don't want to ban the Burqa in the UK either, but lets not forget that it is inherently misogynist.

Because it is used a method of suppression in other countries does not mean it is used as a method of suppression in this country. Surely you can understand this basic difference?

It's not like we are perfect either. In some places if women turn up in the wrong clothes (high heels, blond hair) you don't get paid. In some ways we just allow the same actions to take place but rather turn a blind eye to it. But then I assume that this is perfectly OK because high heels and blond hair is not a cultural or religious norm...?

"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V

I find it odd that the Left in the West gets so worked up over a religious garment that is used to oppress Women elsewhere in the world...

I don't want to ban the Burqa in the UK either, but lets not forget that it is inherently misogynist.

Because it is used a method of suppression in other countries does not mean it is used as a method of suppression in this country. Surely you can understand this basic difference?

Yes, I can. In those countries, it is often mandated by Law. In this country, we (currently) have Laws to protect women from that kind of suppression. That might change one day if we don't stand up to defend our values and discourage that suppression here. Society is not immutable. It changes over time.

Surely you can forsee a day when it WILL be used as a method of suppression in this country?

It's not like we are perfect either. In some places if women turn up in the wrong clothes (high heels, blond hair) you don't get paid. In some ways we just allow the same actions to take place but rather turn a blind eye to it. But then I assume that this is perfectly OK because high heels and blond hair is not a cultural or religious norm...?

Assume whatever the feth you like, but thats a Straw Man.You're making up what you think my arguments will be. I don't think thats "perfectly OK" at all.

Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm for individual liberty. I want everyone to have the freedom to wear what they choose. I do not want to ban the Burqa.

The difference is that I am questioning the assertion that people do it purely out of free will.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/11 14:06:09

Do you deny that flogging a woman for refusing to wear a Burqa is misogyny?

This doesn't happen in the UK, there are countries all over the world that punish you for not wearing the accepted clothing. It doesn't make it right. Are you saying that women wearing burkas in this country are being suppressed by other nation states?

Where is the evidence that it is not? Do you seriously think that Women who "choose" to wear Burqa's are doing it purely out of choice, and not because they have been raised and indoctrinated to believe its a religious mandate and they'd be bad Muslims if they don't? Do you seriously believe that Muslim women do not feel pressure from their communities and families to dress a certain way?

I do not know, however you are stating that it definitely must be. I've already accepted that there are those that oppress women across society and this should be dealt with on an individual basis through education, developing confidence and prosecutions where necessary. You are asserting categorically that everyone wearing a burka must be forced to do, where in all likelihood you probably don't know anyone in depth enough to know whether they are or not (and definitely can't say for all of them). You are categorising people simply because of a style of clothes based on a religious reason. That is the basis for racism and bigotry.

I'm not waiving away anything. I don't doubt for a minute that genuine Far Right "Alt-Righters" exist. But they'e a tiny minority of the people who are labelled "Alt Right". The vast majority of people labelled "Alt Right" are simply ordinary Conservatives. Its become an absurd witch hunt blown out of all proportion.

Then perhaps you should read up about all the elements Alt-right includes and apply that to some of the actions of the Tory party. Perhaps you might be surprised. Alt-right isn't just fascists and so forth. It is a group of people that in the end wave the flag from nationalism (mainly white based) all through to the Nazi's we all despise. It's a re-imagining of those hard right nutcases in a catch all term to both distance themselves from old nomenclature to make it more appealing to those that are simply nationalistic whilst allowing them to ever drawn towards the centre of what they really are.

Yes, I can. In those countries, it is often mandated by Law. In this country, we (currently) have Laws to protect women from that kind of suppression. That might change one day if we don't stand up to defend our values and discourage that suppression here. Society is not immutable. It changes over time.

OK, so it's tin hat paranoia time is it thinking that some day we might bring in capital punishment for what we wear.

Surely you can forsee a day when it WILL be used as a method of suppression in this country?

The only suppression I can see is from the likes of Bozo that the above types of daft sentiment bring forth to allow us to suppress groups from another religion because they "dress differently" and we *think* we know why . But I'm not sure that is what you were meant to be espousing.

Assume whatever the feth you like, but thats a Straw Man.You're making up what you think my arguments will be. I don't think thats "perfectly OK" at all.

I'm just pointing out that women in this country can be punished for what they wear. Obviously that is acceptable here

The difference is that I am questioning the assertion that people do it purely out of free will.

Without evidence, but you seem categorically convinced you are right for no other reason than I can see other than "that's not how our women dress", right?

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/08/11 14:17:30

"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V

What’s ironic in all of this is that Borris was ultimately defending their right to wear the burka. He just doesn’t agree with it personally. And as far as I’m aware we’re all still allowed to have opinions in this country, for the time being at least anyway. Don’t agree with what you wear but I’ll defend to the death your right to wear it and all that.

So you woudl be quite happy for me to compare you to a paedophile because of the clothes you wear? There's a huge difference between free speech and making assertions about a group of people because of the clothes they wear. Freedom of speech also comes with responsibility to use that with discretion and sense.

No, I wouldn't be happy, and I'd reply by telling you to feth off in such a hypothetical situation, but nor would I be calling for you to be locked up for saying it. We all know there is social interactions and norms that happen or don't happen in human society. You're free to walk up to a heavy weight boxer and call him a piece of bullgak, but you probably wouldn't because you'd expect a punch on the nose in return.

We all tend to self-regulate our words on a daily basis anyway. Well, most of us do in society.

If people said I look like X for the clothes I wear, that's no different IMO than laughing at a Scotsman for wearing a Kilt or saying Morris dancers look like idiots.

Criticising a Morris dancer's clothes and saying they are ridiculous is fine. Me calling for Whirlwind and Shadow Captain to go out and kill Morris dancers is obviously unacceptable.

That's how I see Bojo's comments. He has a God given right to say they look silly. He has no right to incite violence against them.

The former he said, the latter was never said.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/11 14:22:47

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd

Whirlwind wrote:I do not know, however you are stating that it definitely must be. I've already accepted that there are those that oppress women across society and this should be dealt with on an individual basis through education, developing confidence and prosecutions where necessary. You are asserting categorically that everyone wearing a burka must be forced to do, where in all likelihood you probably don't know anyone in depth enough to know whether they are or not (and definitely can't say for all of them). You are categorising people simply because of a style of clothes based on a religious reason. That is the basis for racism and bigotry.

I'm not categorising anybody. I'm categorising a cultural and religious practice that pressures and coerces Women to dress a certain way, denying them the freedom to dress as they choose. That is the basis for misogyny.

I agree that you can't say for sure either way whether or not a person wears it out of choice or because of social pressure without knowing their heart, which is why I do not favour banning it. I am questioning whether they are truly making a free choice without being pressured or coerced from family, community, religious and cultural pressures.

Future War Cultist wrote:What’s ironic in all of this is that Borris was ultimately defending their right to wear the burka. He just doesn’t agree with it personally. And as far as I’m aware we’re all still allowed to have opinions in this country, for the time being at least anyway. Don’t agree with what you wear but I’ll defend to the death your right to wear it and all that.

That's not what he said at all. He both commented it should be right for certain employers to ban it where they feel it doesn't facilitate interaction with customers (so hence the rights of an individual are lost for the profit of an organisation). He also stated that:-

"I am against a total ban because it is inevitably construed – rightly or wrongly – as being intended to make some point about Islam."

So hence he doesn't like the banning of it completely because he just want's to avoid anything that will show him to be a racist a-hole. He is not opposed to the banning of it because a person's rights at all!

"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V

Future War Cultist wrote:What’s ironic in all of this is that Borris was ultimately defending their right to wear the burka. He just doesn’t agree with it personally. And as far as I’m aware we’re all still allowed to have opinions in this country, for the time being at least anyway. Don’t agree with what you wear but I’ll defend to the death your right to wear it and all that.

Well said.

The other week on another forum, I was defending EU supporters against that Tory fethwit who wanted treason charges against them.

You all know how I feel about the EU, but I'd always defend their right to peacefully campaign to get us back in there, even though I'd happily tell Juncker to stick his project up his Khyber.

For me, free speech is all or nothing. You have to defend stuff you don't like. If you waver for a minute, you may as well call it a day, because they'll come for you next.

We all hang together or we all hang separately

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd

Whirlwind wrote:Assume whatever the feth you like, but thats a Straw Man.You're making up what you think my arguments will be. I don't think thats "perfectly OK" at all.

I'm just pointing out that women in this country can be punished for what they wear. Obviously that is acceptable here

No you weren't, you were framing it as a Straw Man, suggesting that I personally hold a double standard. If that was not your intention, then frame your argument more clearly.

The difference is that I am questioning the assertion that people do it purely out of free will.

Without evidence, but you seem categorically convinced you are right

If I was categorically convinced that all Women are coerced against their will into wearing it, then I WOULD be arguing for a ban on Burqas. But I am not. Because I acknowledge the possibility that they're wearing it out of free will. And because I generally don't like that degree of Government interference in private life. I am arguing that there are too many cultural, religious and social pressures to wear a Burqa that any suggestion that "Women do it out of free will" should be treated with scepticism.

for no other reason than I can see other than "that's not how our women dress", right?

Again, you're making up a Straw Man. Please stop doing that, its rude. Stop making up my reasons, and start LISTENING to my reasons. I've already told you. Throughout the world, in the countries where this style of Islamic dress originates from, Women ARE compelled through religion, Law and social pressure to wear it. Just because they're not compelled to wear it here in Europe doesn't change the fact that in its original form and context, it was and continues to be a compulsory cultural practice. Just because British Law ostensibly protects Muslim Women here from that compulsion, does not mean that there are no people here who are seeking to make it compulsory.

And hell, its arguable that its not even an Islamic religious requirement, I've seen claims that it in fact pre-dates Islam. Don't many Islamic countries themselves ban the Burqa? Are THEY racist and bigots for banning it?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/11 14:39:20

If people said I look like X for the clothes I wear, that's no different IMO than laughing at a Scotsman for wearing a Kilt or saying Morris dancers look like idiots.

Criticising a Morris dancer's clothes and saying they are ridiculous is fine. Me calling for Whirlwind and Shadow Captain to go out and kill Morris dancers is obviously unacceptable.

So you would then laugh at someone wearing a Kippah? Despite that fact it's not really any of your business what someone else wears. But you are quite happy to comment and criticise because of:-

a) being an arrogant a-hole?
b) because it gives my life meaning and I feel better for not wearing those clothes?
c) I like sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong?
d) I have a character flaw...
e) insert other option.

So again why would you call something ridiculous - what in your mind makes someone using a certain style of dress ridiculous?

No one in this country is talking about capital punishment for clothes, it's really a ridiculous argument. It is possible to use it as an excuse for 'acceptable' racism though.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/11 14:36:30

"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V

No one in this country is talking about capital punishment for clothes, it's really a ridiculous argument. It is possible to use it as an excuse for 'acceptable' racism though.

You can't talk about Britain in a vacuum. By its very nature, the Burqa is an international cultural practice. It did not originate here. The fact that in other parts of the world the Burqa is punishable by Corporal (and Capital?) punishment is entirely relevant to the discussion.

Whirlwind, I tend not to go out and laugh at people or criticise them for no good reason anyway, and the vast majority of people in society won't deliberately go out to cause offence or upset people.

Like I said, we, as a society, tend to regulate ourselves at any rate with regard to social conventions. If you made an insult about somebody's clothes to their face, you'd obviously expect some sort of retaliation, which is why 99% of people have the good sense not to do it out of politeness, self-preservation or simply because they'd never do it anyway.

But you'd never stop people thinking or speaking it, and nor should you. We all have freedom of thought and action, whilst accepting there can be some consequences to our actions: if you murder, you go to jail, not being able to shout fire in a cinema etc etc

There always has to be a balance.

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd

Whirlwind wrote:Assume whatever the feth you like, but thats a Straw Man.You're making up what you think my arguments will be. I don't think thats "perfectly OK" at all.

I'm just pointing out that women in this country can be punished for what they wear. Obviously that is acceptable here

No you weren't, you were framing it as a Straw Man, suggesting that I personally hold a double standard. If that was not your intention, then frame your argument more clearly.

You are quick to point out in other countries where someone might be punished for not wearing certain clothes and that is a reason why Bozo has a point leading to oppression in this country. The argument that the 'left' are defending these countries because of that oppression. Your argument that oppression in another country must mean oppression in this one without evidence and that in some way they are being controlled because of cultural and religious stereotypes. Yet failing to recognise that similar types of oppression happen in our own country based on cultural stereotypes. That your argument is invalid because both the countries you highlighted have different but fundamentally oppressive methods to control what women wear.

If I was categorically convinced that all Women are coerced against their will into wearing it, then I WOULD be arguing for a ban on Burqas. But I am not. Because I acknowledge the possibility that they're wearing it out of free will. And because I generally don't like that degree of Government interference in private life. I am arguing that there are too many cultural, religious and social pressures to wear a Burqa that any suggestion that "Women do it out of free will" should be treated with scepticism.

That to me sounds like you are convinced, but can't find the evidence to prove that you are correct.

Again, you're making up a Straw Man. Please stop doing that, its rude. Stop making up my reasons, and start LISTENING to my reasons. I've already told you. Throughout the world, in the countries where this style of Islamic dress originates from, Women ARE compelled through religion, Law and social pressure to wear it. Just because they're not compelled to wear it here in Europe doesn't change the fact that in its original form and context, it was and continues to be a compulsory cultural practice.

No it's a logical assertion based on what you are saying. In your own words

Do you seriously think that Women who "choose" to wear Burqa's are doing it purely out of choice

you state you don't understand why any woman would wear a burka based simply in our cultural 'norm' we don't and that in a country they may never have been to use it is a tool of oppression. You can't grasp that such clothing arise from before such countries even existed but because they exist now it must mean that it as an overlying oppressive influence. You can't get that someone might simply wear it because they want to in the same way we may choose to wear a tshirt, or trousers or suit and so forth. Hence it is correct to state that simply you can't understand why people might wear such attire because traditionally more women in the UK tend to not wear such clothing. It's your lack of concept and arguably narrow field of view that is preventing any alternative explanation.

"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V